IADNR bans cell cam "scouting" during hunting season

[TheWhitetailNut]

What gives you the right to put up trail cameras on public land?

This isn’t about fair chase. It isn’t about whether or not I want to use trail cameras. It’s about how some people want to utilize public land as if it was their own private land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't understand your position, not sure you do. Are you offended someone else is having more fun or something? Now you say it's not about fair chase and it's not about whether you want to? I had hoped given your position you did not want to. Man, do you regulate the use of ketchup by other people in a restaurant too? Even if you had no plans to consume the ketchup yourself? I can see you running around yelling at people.... "NO! Not on eggs!!" This is a restaurant... Not your house.....

 

[buddys1974]

Without a string of cameras being able to track a deer, they're not truthfully real time. even on immediate upload, it still takes a few minutes for my cameras to send it up. by that time especially during the rut a buck could have moved quite a bit.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don't understand your position, not sure you do. Are you offended someone else is having more fun or something? Now you say it's not about fair chase and it's not about whether you want to? I had hoped given your position you did not want to. Man, do you regulate the use of ketchup by other people in a restaurant too? Even if you had no plans to consume the ketchup yourself? I can see you running around yelling at people.... "NO! Not on eggs!!" This is a restaurant... Not your house.....

You don’t get to make private improvements to public lands. You don’t get to treat public land like you own it.

Totally sick of people trying to claim public lands. Totally sick of how territorial a lot of people get about public land. Totally sick of people being assholes on public land because I stumbled upon “their spot” and set up there before they dragged their ass out of bed. “Those are *my* cameras! Can’t you see them?! I put in that food plot! This is my spot!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muley Tag]

Get rid of all those full-time surveillance cameras, I say........jeez, give the critters a break.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

You don’t get to make private improvements to public lands. You don’t get to treat public land like you own it.

Totally sick of people trying to claim public lands. Totally sick of how territorial a lot of people get about public land. Totally sick of people being assholes on public land because I stumbled upon “their spot” and set up there before they dragged their ass out of bed. “Those are *my* cameras! Can’t you see them?! I put in that food plot! This is my spot!”


Sent from my iPhone using

OK. So, no cameras, no tree stands, no ground blinds. YOU don't get to treat public land like you own it if nobody else can.

Based on the rest of your response might I suggest some therapy...

 

[Q_Sertorius]

OK. So, no cameras, no tree stands, no ground blinds. YOU don't get to treat public land like you own it if nobody else can.

Based on the rest of your response might I suggest some therapy...

Agreed. No private cameras, tree stands, or ground blinds, or similar improvements, on public lands.

If the public, through elected representatives and their appointees, chooses to put those improvements out there for everyone to use, then we can treat them like any other public improvements. At which point, just like reserving a fire pit at the local park for your Memorial Day barbecue, who gets to use it can be handled through a normal process.

The whole point of public land is that it belongs to the collective public. Not to individual members of the public. It is regulated so that no individual member of the public over exploits it for his own benefit (the well known tragedy of the commons). Public land doesn’t belong to the person who “claims it first” or is willing to be the most obnoxious to anyone around him. You may be a reasonable person, but we have rules and processes in place because there are plenty of people who are not.

This isn’t a difficult concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

Agreed. No private cameras, tree stands, or ground blinds, or similar improvements, on public lands.

If the public, through elected representatives and their appointees, chooses to put those improvements out there for everyone to use, then we can treat them like any other public improvements. At which point, just like reserving a fire pit at the local park for your Memorial Day barbecue, who gets to use it can be handled through a normal process.

The whole point of public land is that it belongs to the collective public. Not to individual members of the public. It is regulated so that no individual member of the public over exploits it for his own benefit (the well known tragedy of the commons). Public land doesn’t belong to the person who “claims it first” or is willing to be the most obnoxious to anyone around him. You may be a reasonable person, but we have rules and processes in place because there are plenty of people who are not.

This isn’t a difficult concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I don't agree with you, I'll give you credit for the congruence of your argument.

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[TSAMP]

Agreed. No private cameras, tree stands, or ground blinds, or similar improvements, on public lands.

If the public, through elected representatives and their appointees, chooses to put those improvements out there for everyone to use, then we can treat them like any other public improvements. At which point, just like reserving a fire pit at the local park for your Memorial Day barbecue, who gets to use it can be handled through a normal process.

The whole point of public land is that it belongs to the collective public. Not to individual members of the public. It is regulated so that no individual member of the public over exploits it for his own benefit (the well known tragedy of the commons). Public land doesn’t belong to the person who “claims it first” or is willing to be the most obnoxious to anyone around him. You may be a reasonable person, but we have rules and processes in place because there are plenty of people who are not.

This isn’t a difficult concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a county park here in Iowa that is run like this. It's a draw hunt. I put in for years, thinking it'd be a fun hunt (doe only) close to my home. Once I actually read the rules I never applied again. They count your arrows on the way in and out. You must notify them the tree and area you will be in and cannot move once out. You cannot track your deer without retrieving a park ranger first. Blah blah blah. I understand there are reasons for all this but no thanks.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

While I don't agree with you, I'll give you credit for the congruence of your argument.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Swamp Fox]

Man, I'm glad I wore my hip boots for *this* thread!

 

[Elkangle]

If the public, through elected representatives and their appointees, chooses to put those improvements out there for everyone to use, then we can treat them like any other public improvements. At which point, just like reserving a fire pit at the local park for your Memorial Day barbecue, who gets to use it can be handled through a normal process.

Lol sounds like a hunting utopia ! So many rules youd be forced to be happy !


Happy holidays

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Lol sounds like a hunting utopia ! So many rules youd be forced to be happy !


Happy holidays

I would rather have a few clear rules and procedures designed to ensure fair access and govern human:human interactions than a myriad of arbitrary rules designed to achieve “fair chase.”

As soon as it became clear to me that fair chase varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (or even within the same jurisdiction), to me it stopped being a valid justification for regulation. That’s why I don’t agree with all the “give the deer a chance” folks in this thread (although I understand their point). It’s easy to have “regulations gone wild” when you start letting the loudest voices or the deepest pockets determine too much of means and methods.

For example, it’s absurd to me that it’s lawful to use hounds to chase deer East of the Blue Ridge, but unlawful West of the Blue Ridge. But if the rule said, “it is lawful to use hounds to chase deer on private lands in Virginia with the prior written permission of the landowner(s), but not on public lands”, I would be perfectly fine with it. And that has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is “fair chase” to use hounds to chase deer. The state has a much greater interest in regulating public lands than private lands. And chief among those is ensuring fair and equal access to those lands. And taking efforts to keep one hunter from interfering with another or to keep a hunter from monopolizing public land is a close second.

Just like we could cut the tax code down considerably with some common sense reforms, we could do the same for hunting regulations.

I want minimal rules about how hunters can hunt, but clear and straightforward rules concerning where, when, what, and how many. And if we do have to regulate “how” then the best justification for it is public safety and to minimize hunters interfering with each other or attempting to monopolize public resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElDiablito]

I think someone needs to start a poll asking if it is “fair chase” to use cell cams for deer hunting during the season. I bet (hope) I know how it will turn out…..